APHC010235232013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31774/2013 Between: 1.K. CHANDRA SEKHARA GOUD, S/O NAGA CHANDRUDU, AGED 26 YEARS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, MGNREGS, VELUGODU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT, HYDERABAD. 2.THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (SRDS), HUDA HERMITAGE OFFICE COMPLEX, HILL FORT ROAD, SAIFABAD, A.P. HYDERABAD. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, KURNOOL. 4.PROJECT DIRECTOR/JOINT SECRETARY, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, KURNOOL 5.MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/ PROGRAMME OFFICER, MGNREGS, VELUGODU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the proceedings RC No. 273/DVC(SA-IV)/2011 Dt. 30-12-2011 of Respondent No. 4 and consequential proceedings No. 2612/CRD/176/SPM(DM)/Appeal/2012, Dt. 30-06-2012 of Respondent No. 2 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from the violation of principles of natural justice and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 39485 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date for hearing of Writ Petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B MANJULATHA VEDAVALLY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31774 OF 2013 ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.4, terminating the engagement of the petitioner as a Technical Assistant. The petitioner challenged the said order before respondent No.2, and respondent No.2 upheld the order passed by respondent No.4. It is stated that respondent No.4 conducted an enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner and, upon consideration of the enquiry report, passed a detailed order holding the petitioner responsible for misappropriation and accordingly terminated his engagement. The Appellate Authority also considered the matter and affirmed the findings of respondent No.4. The order passed by the Appellate Authority further provides for filing a revision/appeal before respondent No.3. However, the petitioner has not availed the said remedy and has instead approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that the petitioner was engaged on a contract basis for a specified period and that the tenure of the contract has also expired. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before respondent No.3 and also submits that this Court, in several similar cases, has dismissed writ petitions filed by similarly placed employees on the ground of non-availment of an effective and alternative remedy has an 3 effective and alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 4 101 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31774 OF 2013 Dated 24.03.2026 KGM 5